• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Appeals Against $1.3 Billion Fine by EU, from 2009

Should Intel pay the fine?

  • Yes

    Votes: 50 79.4%
  • No

    Votes: 13 20.6%

  • Total voters
    63

Kreij

Senior Monkey Moderator
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
13,817 (3.46/day)
Likes
5,524
Location
Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
#26
You usually get mud in your eyes where you're from? /s
Dust actually. It hasn't rained here in weeks. :D

It doesn't mater that AMD dropped the lawsuit, it's not AMD that started the inquiry into intel's business practices, it's the EU itself. It's called self-mandated and that's what a state's anti-corruption body, in this case the EC, does when it hears about issues between two parties non-related to said government or the EU. Lawbreaking is still lawbreaking and intel should pay per European law. Whatever ideas you have about US law... you can flush that down the toilet. It doesn't apply here.
I fully agree that the EU should be able to mandate it's own laws and that it has nothing to do with US jurisdiction.
I also agree that if Intel wants to do business in the EU that they have to follow the laws set forth, and that if they are found guilty should have to pay the fines.

I just think that Intel should fight it to the death because I like the drama.
 

Andy77

New Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
119 (0.04/day)
Likes
11
#27
Dust actually. It hasn't rained here in weeks. :D
Huh... so it not just where I live. Well good from one point, bad from another.

I fully agree that the EU should be able to mandate it's own laws and that it has nothing to do with US jurisdiction.
I also agree that if Intel wants to do business in the EU that they have to follow the laws set forth, and that if they are found guilty should have to pay the fines.

I just think that Intel should fight it to the death because I like the drama.
I don't... every fight costs, not just intel but the EU taxpayer as well.
 

Undead46

New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
256 (0.10/day)
Likes
22
Location
USA, Texas
Processor i7-2600K @ 4.5GHz - 1.335VCore
Motherboard ASUS P8P67 WS Revolution (B3)
Cooling Noctua NH-D14
Memory G.SKILL Ripjaws X 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 2133MHz 7-11-8-27-1N (F3-12800CL6D-4GBXH)
Video Card(s) Sapphire 6950 (Unlocked)
Storage OCZ Vertex 2 120GB SSD (OS & Games), 500GB WD Caviar Blue, 250GB WD Caviar Blue
Display(s) Dell 23" U2311H IPS Monitor
Case Cooler Master HAF X Full Tower
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 7 Professional - 64bit
#28
You guys are crazy...
If AMD dropped their case, then the EU has to present new evidence stating they broke the law.
AMD cannot contribute to the case since they settled; the EU cannot obtain said evidence.
EU can't prove they broke the law, because common sense doesn't work in the legal system.
Intel doesn't have to pay, their appeal worked.

Basically how it's going to break down..

Should they pay? No, because they went through the legal system to avoid paying. Any business owner would have done the same.
 

Andy77

New Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
119 (0.04/day)
Likes
11
#29
AMD cannot contribute to the case since they settled; the EU cannot obtain said evidence.
No, because AMD doesn't hold the evidence, that is held by the OEM's with which intel made verbal agreements during lunch meetings. Which in turn landed in the hands of authorities and can be used to enforce EC's own evidence.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2010/lr21599.htm

Like I said, the EU justice system works differently than it does in the US. It's enough to get notice that lets say Dell refused to add AMD to their lineup when Athlon64 was released, that's before Christmas 2003 - a big sales period, and we have Michael Dell's "testimony" in which he clearly states AMD isn't worth it so no, AMD won't appear in Dell systems, which then in 2004 still happens because Pentium 4 were seen as a weaker options and pressure was made to include Athlon64's in their systems. It's enough to notice that a business man like Michael D., making some strange comments which didn't hold any water, didn't act in the best interest of his company by acknowledging the better product and offering solution as such.

Wouldn't you lets say as an investor find it strange if your CEO made a business decision that in effect would produce loss of image as a brand, clients and money? Keep in mind, that as an investor you have a much higher power of control over security in your company, compared to execs - i.e. your "labors", and can in effect gather evidence that the dealings your CEO and co. (aka the foot-soldiers) made with intel actually were a big screw-up for you.

Rising an eyebrow and then finding some... skeletons.

That's all it takes to become suspicious, and inquiries then can prove those suspicions right or wrong.
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
18 (0.01/day)
Likes
23
Location
Brisbane, Australia
#30
As I am only a private user of both Intel and AMD chips, I see this as a loss to me for whatever happens, ultimately it will be the user who pays the cost as it will be past on. The lawyers will be winning as usual.
 

babash*t

New Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
74 (0.03/day)
Likes
10
Location
Nairobi, Kenya
System Name Baba
Processor AMD FX 8120 @4.2Ghz
Motherboard MSi 990FX GD65
Cooling Thermaltake Frio
Memory 2x4gb Corsair Vengeance LP
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD 7870 2gb
Storage 500GB WD blue + 2x2TB WD green
Display(s) 2x AOC i2353Fh IPS LED Monitors
Case Generic
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply CoolerMaster GX650 Bronze
Software Win 7 Ultimate 64bit / Win 8 64bit Release Preview
#31
Intel should be judged guilty/pay up.. hoping that will mean more availability of amd products(compared to Intel) thus better competition - prices from both, WIn for the end user
 

Frick

Fishfaced Nincompoop
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
14,908 (3.43/day)
Likes
5,425
System Name A dancer in your disco of fire
Processor i3 4130 3.4Ghz
Motherboard MSI B85M-E45
Cooling Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo
Memory 4 x 4GB Crucial Ballistix Sport 1400Mhz
Video Card(s) Asus GTX 760 DCU2OC 2GB
Storage Crucial BX100 120GB | WD Blue 1TB x 2
Display(s) BenQ GL2450HT
Case AeroCool DS Cube White
Power Supply Cooler Master G550M
Mouse Intellimouse Explorer 3.0
Keyboard Dell SK-3205
Software Windows 10 Pro
#32
Intel should be judged guilty/pay up.. hoping that will mean more availability of amd products(compared to Intel) thus better competition - prices from both, WIn for the end user
That would require AMD to actually develop and release those CPU's, which they can't, and having them perform the same as Intel, which they won't (at the higher end). CPU's from all sides are readily avaliable.
 

Andy77

New Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
119 (0.04/day)
Likes
11
#33
As I am only a private user of both Intel and AMD chips, I see this as a loss to me for whatever happens, ultimately it will be the user who pays the cost as it will be past on. The lawyers will be winning as usual.
Well, considering that those deals were made since 2000 or so I'd say intel and co.'s customers are already paying for years, intel just banked it all in the event it got caught and now that it did it has to cough up the dough. That's actually your money, Pete, not intel's.